I've completely changed my take on several of the Republican candidates after Saturday night's debate. I still don't totally love any one candidate, but this debate cleared up a few issues for me.
First, Ron Paul is off my list. Every time he got a chance to speak (which wasn't often), he ranted and railed. What he said wasn't horrible (except on the topic of anti-terrorism), but the way he said it was a real turn-off.
His take on Islamic Jihad (and Mike Huckabee's as well) appeared quite ill-informed, to me. What I took away was that he believed the only reason Islamic extremists had targeted the U.S. was because we have a presence in the Middle East and have attempted to force our religious and governmental systems on them. I agree with him that this is unwise and would/does create resentment.
However, I was surprised and impressed with Rudy Guiliani's and Mitt Romney's grasp of the teachings of Jihad. They very clearly communicated the reality of the situation -- regardless of our policies in the Middle East, the religious teachings of Islam, when not moderated to be palatable for Western minds, regard everyone and every system outside of Islam as a mortal enemy to be destroyed. No public figure is willing to voice this truth, but if you do your homework, you'll find it a violently intolerant belief system.
That was the only subject that Rudy and Mitt did well on, for me. (Although I have to confess that I wasn't able to watch the entire Republican debate -- it was bath night at our house, so I watched in between bathing/drying/lotioning/pajama-ing kids.)
John McCain was very impressive. I thought one moment particularly telling: he criticized drug companies for their massive campaign contributions and manipulation of policies in their favor (specifically reimbursement for Medicare/Medicaid), and Mitt Romney rushed to their defense. Gee. I wonder who took pharmaceutical company campaign contributions?
I also like McCain's approach to illegal immigration. He has taken a lot of flak for it, but his compassion for these people is good. He understands that this is a terribly complex situation and no blanket proclamation by a single politician is going to solve it. These are human beings trying to feed and clothe their families and make a better life, and it is wrong to treat them like scum. If we had a simpler, faster legal process of gaining access to this country, we wouldn't have such a big problem.
Another fantastic moment occurred during the Democratic debate. The moderator, Charlie Gibson, put all of the candidates on the spot and refused to back down on the Iraq war. He reminded them of their lack of support for the troop surge, pointed out that it appears to be working (a huge concession for someone in the media these days!), and questioned their positions now vs at the time of the vote. It was quite refreshing to hear Gibson admit that the situation is improving due to a Republican-supported change.
After digesting it all for a couple of days, I've decided that if I vote Republican, I'll vote for McCain.
I was able to watch most of the Democratic debate. I can see why Bill Richardson is fourth -- all he did was thump his podium and talk about executive experience is vague, general terms. Hillary had some good moments too, but I will never vote for her after all the controversy and ethical questions that swirled around her and Bill during their Arkansas and White House days. I liked Edwards and Obama, though I really couldn't tell that they differ significantly after this debate. I know they do -- just didn't hear it clearly Saturday night.
I guess what it comes down to, for me, is which approach I agree with more. I don't know yet! I think once we get past the primaries and the debates feature Democrat vs Republican ideas, it will be easier for me to compare and evaluate. For now, I have to decide whether to take a Democrat or Republican ballot in our primary -- and that will depend on which candidate most needs votes -- my favorite Democrat or Republican.
